Loading...
05-20-25 PC Agenda and Packet A.6:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER B.PUBLIC HEARINGS B.1 Ordinance XXX: Amending Chapter 1 and Chapter 20 Defining and Regulating Detached Accessory Dwelling Units C.GENERAL BUSINESS D.APPROVAL OF MINUTES D.1 Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated May 6, 2025 E.COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS F.ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS G.CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION H.OPEN DISCUSSION I.ADJOURNMENT AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, MAY 20, 2025 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 9:00 p.m. as outlined in the official by-laws. We will make every attempt to complete the hearing for each item on the agenda. If, however, this does not appear to be possible, the Chairperson will notify those present and offer rescheduling options. Items thus pulled from consideration will be listed first on the agenda at the next Commission meeting. If a constituent or resident sends an email to staff or the Planning Commission, it must be made part of the public record based on State Statute. If a constituent or resident sends an email to the Mayor and City Council, it is up to each individual City Council member and Mayor if they want it to be made part of the public record or not. There is no State Statute that forces the Mayor or City Council to share that information with the public or be made part of the public record. Under State Statute, staff cannot remove comments or letters provided as part of the public input process. 1 Planning Commission Item May 20, 2025 Item Ordinance XXX: Amending Chapter 1 and Chapter 20 Defining and Regulating Detached Accessory Dwelling Units File No.Item No: B.1 Agenda Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Prepared By Rachel Jeske, Planner Applicant Present Zoning Land Use Acerage Density Applicable Regulations SUGGESTED ACTION "Motion to recommend adoption of the ordinance amending Chapter 1 and Chapter 20 defining and regulating detached accessory dwelling units." SUMMARY The Planning Commission reviewed detached accessory dwelling units during a work session in July of 2023. The City Council has been reviewing draft standards associated with detached accessory dwelling units in Q1 and Q2 of 2025. The City Council has considered the prior recommendation of the Planning Commission and further refined the proposed detached ADU ordinance. The City Council most recently considered the attached ordinance at their work session on May 12 and was generally supportive of the ordinance based on the performance standards outlined within the draft ordinance. 2 BACKGROUND This ordinance is being considered as consideration of Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) ordinances was part of the 2024 Community Development Department work plan, as approved by the City Council. This housing option was included in the work plan based on consistent interest from the community. It is also being considered, as the city has received 10 applications for ADUs since the mid-1980s, all of which have been approved, and the current process for evaluating an attached ADU is a variance process. DISCUSSION RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance defining and regulating detached accessory dwelling units. ATTACHMENTS Detached ADU Ordinance Properties Zoned as Residential Single Family by lot size Affidavit of Publication 3 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. XXX AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 1 AND CHAPTER 20 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, DEFINING DETACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND REGULATING DETACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE AGRICULTURE, RURAL RESIDENTIAL, AND RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 1-2 of the City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, is hereby amended to include the following: Section 1-2 Rules of Construction and Definitions Dwelling, Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit, means a residential dwelling unit that is subordinate and clearly incidental to a primary structure, located on the same lot as a single- family dwelling unit, not within the same building as the single-family dwelling unit but which has its own kitchen, bathroom, living, and sleeping area. Section 2. Section 20-574 of the City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, which regulates the A-2 Agricultural Estate zoning district is hereby amended with subsection (a) to read as follows: (a) Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit (subject to the requirements of section 20-261) Section 3. Section 20-594 of the City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, which regulates the RR Rural Residential zoning district is hereby amended with subsection (e) to be established and to read as follows: (e) Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit (subject to the requirements of section 20-261) Section 4. Section 20-614 of the City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, which regulates the RSF Residential Single Family zoning district is hereby amended with subsection (b) to read as follows: (b) Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit (subject to the requirements of section 20-261) Section 5. Section 20-261 of the City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 20-261 Reserved Detached Accessory Dwelling Units 4 The following conditions will apply to Detached Accessory Dwelling Units: (a) Height - no taller than the principal structure. In the A2 and RR districts, height of Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit may exceed the height of the principal structure if located above a garage but shall not exceed the maximum height restriction of the underlying zoning district. (b) Setbacks - shall meet all principal structure building setbacks required by the underlying zoning district. (c) Size - shall be at least 200 square feet in size but less than 960 square feet in area. (d) Bedrooms - no more than one bedroom. (e) Number of Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit's - no more than one ADU allowed on any one property inclusive of both attached and detached ADUs. (f) Structure - shall have a permanent foundation with no wheels. (g) Impervious Lot Coverage - Maximum impervious lot coverage standards established by the underlying zoning district shall be adhered to. (h) Owner Occupancy - An owner of the property that includes an accessory dwelling unit that is detached from the principal residential structure must occupy at least one (1) dwelling unit on the zoning lot as their primary place of residence. If an owner is unable or unwilling to fulfill the requirements of this section, the owner shall remove those features of the accessory dwelling unit that make it a dwelling unit. Failure to do so will constitute a violation of this section. (i) Rental – Detached Accessory Dwelling Units may not be used as rental properties, including short-term rentals, as defined by the City Code. (j) Architectural Design - Detached Accessory Dwelling Units shall be generally consistent with the principal structure on the lot as determined by the Community Development Director. (k) Parking - Driveway access. No additional driveway access to a public or private road will be allowed for a Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit. (l) Utilities - Unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer, the Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit shall not have separate public sewer or water utility services from the principal structure. (m) Building, Fire, Property Maintenance Code - Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit shall abide by and follow the Building, Fire, and Property Maintenance code. 5 (n) Screening - Detached Accessory Dwelling Units may require year-round vegetative screening based on review by the City and at the sole discretion of the City Council. (o) Property Size – If the property is zoned Residential Single Family (RSF), that property shall have a minimum lot size of 1.0 acres to be considered through a conditional use permit process. Properties which are zoned as RSF but which do not have a minimum lot size of 1.0 acres may request a variance to allow a detached ADU. Section 6. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED this ___day of _____, 2025, by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota ______________________________ ________________________________ Jenny Potter, City Clerk Elise Ryan, Mayor (Published in the ____________ on ______________________________) 6 Lake Virginia Christmas Lake Lotus Lake Lake Susan Rice Marsh Lake Lake Riley Rice Lake Lake Minnewashta Lake Ann Lake Lucy ST18 ST14 ST15 ST17 ST61 SA5 SA7 SA5 SA101 SA41 )212PowersBlvd Lyman Blvd Audubon RdPioneer TrlGalpinBlvdPowersBlvd F ly in g C lo u d D r GreatPlai n s Blv dST101 ST101 Document Path: K:\Departments\Planning\Detached Accessory Dwelling Units.aprxDate Created: 4/22/2025 Created By: City of Chanhassen - Engineering Department µ0 0.5 Mile 0 3,000 Feet Residential Single Family Parcels (by size) City of Chanhassen Legend 0.00 - 0.34 acres 0.34 - 0.40 acres 0.41 - 0.50 acres 0.50 - 1.0 acres 1.0 - 1.5 acres 1.5 - 2.5 acres 2.5 acres and greater 7 AFFTDAvTT oF PUBLrcariSN srATE OF MTNNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ss I do solemly swear that the notice, as per the proof, was published in the edition of the SS Mtka-Excelsior-Eden Prairie with the known ollice of issue being located in the county of: HENNEPIN with additional circulation in the counties of: HENNEPIN and has full knowledge of the facts stated below: (A) The newspaper has complied with all of the requirements constituting qualihca- tion as a qualified newspaper as provided by Minn. Stat. $331A.02. (B) ffis Fublic Notice was printed and pub- lished in said newspaper(s) once each week, for I successive week(s); the first insertiou being on 0510812025 and the last insertion being on 0510812025. MORT'IGAGE FORECLOSURE NOTICTS Pursuant to Minnesota Stat. $580.033 relating to the publication of mortgage foreclosure notices: The newspaper complies with the conditions described in $580.033, subd. 1, clause (l) or (2). If the newspaper's known offrce of issue is located in a county adjoining the county where the mortgaged premises or some part of the mortgaged premises described in the notice are located, a substantial portion of the newspaper's in the latter county. Subscribed and sworn to or affrrmed me on 05/08/2025 .,/(- Notary Public Rate Information: (l) Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space: $999.99 per column inch By: ffi Darlene Marie MacPherson ffW;XA *inlx?"?li'" \W uv c.*mission E4ires Jan. 31, 2o2s AdtD 1467656 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE lS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Com- mission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, May 20, 2025, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Mar- ket Boulevard. The purpose of this hearing is to consider amending Chapters 1 and 20 of the Chanhas- sen City Code to define detached accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and corresponding requirements to allow detached ADUs in the City of Chanhassen. The prcposed changes are available for public review at City Hall during regular business hours or on the City's website at www.ChanhassenMN.gov/ ProoosedOrdinances. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal. Rachel Jeske Planner Email: rieske@chanhassenmn.gov Phonei 952-227-1137 Published in the Sun Sailor May 8,2025 1 467656 8 Planning Commission Item May 20, 2025 Item Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated May 6, 2025 File No.Item No: D.1 Agenda Section APPROVAL OF MINUTES Prepared By Amy Weidman, Senior Admin Support Specialist Applicant Present Zoning Land Use Acerage Density Applicable Regulations SUGGESTED ACTION "The Chanhassen Planning Commission approves its May 6, 2025 meeting minutes" SUMMARY BACKGROUND DISCUSSION RECOMMENDATION 9 "The Chanhassen Planning Commission approves its May 6, 2025 meeting minutes" ATTACHMENTS Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated May 6, 2025 10 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MAY 6, 2025 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Noyes called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Eric Noyes, Steve Jobe, Jeremy Rosengren, Ryan Soller, Mike Olmstead, Dave Grover, and Katie Trevena. MEMBERS ABSENT: None. STAFF PRESENT: Rachel Arsenault, Associate Planner; Eric Maass, Community Development Director; and Rachel Jeske, Planner. PUBLIC PRESENT: John Gilbert 1641 Jeurissen Lane PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. ORDINANCE XXX: AMENDING CHAPTERS 1 AND 20 REGULATING ATTACHED AND INTERNAL ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS Rachel Jeske, Planner, stated that the purpose of the proposed ordinance amendment would amend the way that attached accessory dwelling units are reviewed by the city. She commented that they were currently permitted through a variance that is approved by the Planning Commission, but there was an increasing interest in accessory dwelling units (ADUs) for residents looking to age in place or to expand housing options for young adults. She reviewed the history of ADUs in Chanhassen, which was adopted in 1986. She said that since 1986, the city has received ten applications, all of which have been approved. She stated that the city ordinance requires a variance application to allow a single-family house to be used as a two-family home if the conditions in the City Code are met. She reviewed the ordinance proposal for attached and internal ADUs, which was drafted based on feedback from the Planning Commission and the City Council during work sessions. The ordinance proposal would allow internal or attached ADUs via a building permit. She reviewed the districts where the accessory dwelling units would be permitted. She reviewed the attached and internal ADU standards, noting that they may be separated from single-family dwelling units by a wall or a floor and may have a separate entrance. She said that they would need to be between 200 and 960 square feet and could only have one bedroom. She said that they could only have one accessory dwelling unit per lot and comply with the setback requirements with the principal structure setbacks, and that the stairways would need to be enclosed inside the home or be on the rear of the building. She commented that the height and impervious lot coverage must comply with the existing regulations. 11 Planning Commission Minutes – May 6, 2025 2 She stated that the accessory dwelling unit had to be secondary to the primary home and had to be architecturally compatible with the neighborhood and home. She noted that the utilities had to be expanded from the primary structure and that the property owner had to occupy at least one of the dwelling units on the zoning lot as their primary place of residence. She noted that the accessory dwelling units could not be used as a short-term rental as defined by the City Code and that the buildings must be constructed and maintained in compliance with the property maintenance requirements set forth in the City Code. Chairman Noyes asked if there were requirements for the bathroom as related to the accessory dwelling units. Ms. Jeske said that if the unit did not have a bathroom, it would not be an accessory dwelling unit. An accessory dwelling unit had to have a bathroom, bedroom, and kitchen. Commissioner Rosengren asked if the electrical code was a separate section of the code. Ms. Jeske answered that the City of Chanhassen did not conduct electrical inspections, but that was through the State of Minnesota. Commissioner Rosengren asked if the accessory dwelling unit could have a separate electrical run into the structure. Ms. Jeske requested that he elaborate on a separate service. Commissioner Rosengren asked if they could run a separate electrical service or would bring the electricity from the house. Ms. Jeske responded that they would most likely have to be on the same meter. Commissioner Rosengren said that someone considering an accessory dwelling unit might need to consider expanding their electric service. Ms. Jeske confirmed that it may be a requirement, but it would depend on that home's existing electric service capacity. Commissioner Trevena asked about the design and why it had to be approved by the Community Development Director. Ms. Jeske responded that the Community Development Director would have the final say on the architecture, which was noted to avoid extremes. She said that it would not be overly stringent. Commissioner Trevena clarified that there were no specific guidelines on whether they were compatible with the home. Chairman Noyes stated that it allowed for veto power. Commissioner Grover asked how anyone would know if they had an accessory dwelling unit if the outside of the house was not changed. He asked about the difference between an accessory dwelling unit and a separate living area in the basement. Ms. Jeske said that they would see someone doing this during the building permit process. She said that an internal accessory dwelling unit often had a separate entrance. Commissioner Rosengren asked about section nine, which said that the total for all accessory units could not be over 1000 square feet. Ms. Jeske said that the current standard for all 12 Planning Commission Minutes – May 6, 2025 3 accessory structures, including sheds and pool houses, could not go over 1000 square feet. An attached or internal accessory dwelling unit would be included in this 1000-square-foot cap as it is part of the principal structure. Commissioner Rosengren asked if a 200-foot shed would subtract from the 1000 square feet and allow for an 800-square-foot accessory dwelling unit. Ms. Jeske confirmed this information in the case of a detached accessory dwelling unit. Commissioner Soller asked how long-term renters could use accessory dwelling units. Ms. Jeske said that long-term rentals were not monitored by the city, but they do have the requirement for owner-occupancy, so one unit must be occupied by the property owner. Commissioner Soller clarified that the short-term rentals meant no Airbnb or VRBO, but long- term rentals were not specified. If an owner were living in the unit, they could rent out the accessory dwelling unit. Eric Maass, Community Development Director, stated that the City Council intended for the accessory dwelling units to be occupied by family members or relatives. The city does not regulate long-term rentals so the city would rely on receiving a complaint if an attached or internal ADU were being used as a long-term rental. Commissioner Soller asked if the intent was captured in the language. Mr. Maass responded that it was not included in there, but if the Planning Commission recommended it, they could include it. Chairman Noyes stated that if they included the language, it would set a level of expectation for someone planning to build an accessory dwelling unit. Commissioner Jobe asked if parking was an issue with any particular zoning structure. Ms. Jeske answered that the ordinance did not influence the existing parking requirements. She stated that the city requires two enclosed garage spots for a single-family dwelling unit. She commented that the required width must meet the width of the garage doors for a certain stretch. Chairman Noyes asked if there was a limit on how many cars you can have at a particular residence. Ms. Jeske responded that a property owner could have as many vehicles in their driveway as they desire, so long as those vehicles met city code. Chairman Noyes opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Noyes closed the public hearing. Chairman Noyes asked about how people felt about the intent of the ADUs. Commissioner Rosengren said that specific language in the ordinance already started to address it, but they could add additional language. 13 Planning Commission Minutes – May 6, 2025 4 Chairman Noyes said that it would be helpful to add additional language. Commissioner Soller commented that he read one, two, and three and thought it was speaking to diversifying the housing stock and making more efficient use of the existing housing stock to provide alternative living options for all people, not just extended family members. He stated that he did not read anything that specified it was for extended family, and it seemed broader, which he was okay with. He said if the City Council intended to specify auxiliary dwelling units for extended family only, the Planning Commission would need to adjust the language. He asked for information about a variance being required. Ms. Jeske responded that a variance was currently required, but the ordinance was to change that to a building permit. She said that the staff could put standard conditions on a building permit, but sometimes there could be things that would fly under the radar and could be missed. She commented that it was the Planning Commission’s decision whether they wanted to change the language. Chairman Noyes said that they were not making a requirement that it be family, but they could put language to encourage the accessory dwelling units to be utilized for family to age in place. He said he did not want the ordinance to allow accessory dwelling units to be used for quick and easy rental properties. Commissioner Jobe asked if they could include the information about family in the definition of an accessory dwelling unit. Commissioner Trevena said she was hung up on the definition of family. She commented that she was nervous about keeping it limited to family. She asked if the concern was with the rental portion of the accessory dwelling units. Chairman Noyes said that they addressed short-term rentals, but they could not address long- term rentals. Commissioner Olmstead asked about the difference between a short-term rental and a long-term rental. Ms. Jeske responded that a short-term rental was any property rented for under thirty days, while a long-term rental was anything rented for over thirty days. Commissioner Olmstead asked if his neighbor has a room, bedroom, and bathroom in his basement that he rents out to a family friend to help get back on his feet, would be considered an auxiliary dwelling unit, and if it would limit someone by saying family only? Ms. Jeske recommended against incorporating language about family since it was broad and limiting. She said what was at the table was whether they wanted to include language about long-term rentals. Commissioner Rosengren said that the City Council seemed to want to tiptoe their way by limiting it to attached internal auxiliary dwelling units. He said that if someone was going to dedicate a portion of their internal structure, the individual would most likely feel comfortable with the renter. He understood the sensitivity to define who they would want to live there, but it did not seem possible to meet everyone’s expectations. 14 Planning Commission Minutes – May 6, 2025 5 Ms. Jeske said that since it was through a building permit, they would not ask who would live there. Chairman Noyes said he liked the spirit of what they were trying to do, but did not know if they could accomplish it without having a concrete and enforceable ordinance. Commissioner Rosengren noted that there was a maximum of one bedroom, which would impact how many people were living in the auxiliary dwelling unit. Commissioner Trevena asked if detached accessory dwelling units were approved if this would be the ordinance that would be amended. Ms. Jeske answered that the City Council was looking at a process to allow detached accessory dwelling units through a conditional use permit, which would have its own separate standards. Commissioner Trevena moved, Commissioner Jobe seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the adoption of the ordinance amending Chapter 1 and Chapter 20 regulating attached and internal accessory dwelling units. All voted in favor, and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. 2. CONSIDER MINOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AMENDMENT TO CHANHASSEN RETAIL CENTER PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PLANNING CASE 2025-09) Ms. Jeske reviewed the location of the Chanhassen Retail Center Planned Unit Development. She said that the subject property in purple was Taco Bell. She stated that the land use designation was commercial. She explained that the reason for the request was that there were architectural standards that were outdated and did not fit with a lot of commercial architecture standards or large corporate standards. She displayed a typical design for a remodeled Taco Bell. She said that they were looking to amend to allow for painted surfaces and a parapet wall or a pitched roof. She explained that the design standards would be changed for all buildings in the unit, not just Taco Bell. She stated that they were striking through item ten, which required all buildings on the property to have a pitched roofline. Chairman Noyes asked if the proposed changes would have any downstream impacts on the other businesses on the property. Ms. Jeske answered that they were leaving the option in the ordinance to allow for a pitched roof or a flat roof with a parapet wall, which would block the view of equipment on the roof. She stated the only other change would be to allow for painted surfaces on the exterior. She commented that they were adding an option for accent materials, which provided flexibility for companies to comply with their corporate design standards. Commissioner Grover asked what the language read before replacing it with “throughout the planned unit development.” Ms. Jeske responded that it said, “located at the Target site.” 15 Planning Commission Minutes – May 6, 2025 6 Commissioner Soller said it looked like there were no comments from any other owners or operators within the Planned Unit Development. Ms. Jeske answered that they received no feedback. Commissioner Rosengren asked about the flat roof on Jersey Mike’s and Leeann Chin’s building. Ms. Jeske answered that those projects had been permitted prior to her time with the City and was unclear how those would have been approved under the existing PUD ordinance. Chairman Noyes opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Noyes closed the public hearing. Chairman Noyes stated that he saw no long-term issues. Commissioner Soller commented that he would miss the old Taco Bell design but that more flexibility was better. Commissioner Olmstead moved, Commissioner Jobe seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance amending the Chanhassen Retail Center PUD Ordinance. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. 3. CONSIDER PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CHANHASSEN BLUFFS COMMUNITY CENTER Rachel Arsenault, Associate Planner, reviewed the location that was to be replatted. She said that the future land use designation was office/commercial. She provided a reminder that Outlot E was earmarked for recreation or entertainment use and that the Senior Housing Complex was no longer anticipated. She reviewed the proposed plat and noted that there were three outlots. She presented a conceptual site plan. She commented that all seven criteria for subdivision review were met, and so were the code standards. Chairman Noyes said he understood what was going on with the 13-acre parcel. He asked why there were three lots and why they were in specific locations. Mrs. Arsenault responded that the outlot to the east side was potentially set for future development for other businesses but was kept as an outlot so it would come through a replatting process and the final plat process and site review. Eric Maass, Community Development Director, explained that the 2.0-acre outlot A was a stormwater pond that was deeded to the city. He said that the 2.2-acre Outlot C would be retained by Level Seven Development for future development, but the actual future development was unknown. He said that the developer would like to get a hotel developed on the 5.6 acre Outlot B, but they wanted to do a test fit. He said that the developer would like to do a car wash on the northwest corner. He commented that the outlots were sized appropriately to aid in development around the Chanhassen Bluffs Community Center. 16 Planning Commission Minutes – May 6, 2025 7 Chairman Noyes said the parking lot in the northwest corner of the 13 acres did not seem to have a delineation. He asked if that was intentional or for illustration purposes. Mr. Maass responded that the site plan was out of date but wanted to provide it as an example so they could see where the building would be located on the site. He said that the exact alignment of the parking and the main entrance would evolve. He said that the line on the site plan did shift, but he expected there to be shared parking with the future development. Chairman Noyes stated that they were doing this to provide extra levels of visibility for the community for the future development of these outlots. Mr. Maass answered that the outlots were expected to be developed in accordance with the Planned Unit Development. Commissioner Olmstead commented that he watched the City Council meeting and that they voted to enter into an agreement to buy the 13 acres and to accept the gift from the developer. He asked if the Planning Commission was looking to divide it into the different parcels. Mr. Maass answered that the city had to define the location of the 13 acres, and the plat was the mechanism to do that. Commissioner Soller said he wanted to understand the process level. He said that the data required information about the land, soil conditions, and susceptibility to erosion, and wondered if he should expect to see more research and data to support the finding. He asked if it was contained in a previous analysis of the physical characteristics of the site or if he should not be worried about it. Mr. Maass answered that the specifics he mentioned came with the site plan process. He commented that the city would follow the required processes, but that the city had reviewed the site to ensure the development potential for the Chanhassen Bluffs facility. Commissioner Jobe asked about the 1.8 acres and if the pond was accurately sized. He asked if they would have the capacity for the run-off as things change. Mr. Maass responded that they had the ultimate condition for the sizing of the stormwater pond and that the 2.0 acres was adequate. Commissioner Soller asked about the requirements for the subdivision and made sure it was not premature. He asked what premature would look like and how the site does not lack the four items under Item G. Mr. Maass answered that there was a sanitary sewer and water main directly adjacent to the site, with the capacity to serve the site with the development. He said if there were no sanitary sewer, the subdivision would be considered premature. He said that all the conditions were met. Chairman Noyes opened the public hearing. John Gilbert, 1641 Jeurissen Lane, said he attended the hearing last night, and water was a hot topic for Pioneer Ridge. He commented that 1.8 acres seemed sufficient. He said he was glad to see that the community center had proper funding in place. He asked about the purchase agreement and the gift for the 13-acre property and whether the city was the applicant, rather than Level 7 Development. He thought the 8.2 Development Plan was in place and had not been updated. He said he understood that as they moved forward, things would crisscross. He said when the plan was first proposed to the city, there was talk about fast food restaurants and car 17 Planning Commission Minutes – May 6, 2025 8 washes, which was initially a concern. He stated that the hotel would do well to serve people who wanted to use the hockey rink. He discussed changes with the planned unit development regarding hydrodynamics as there may be changes when it comes to the final plan, and if the 2.0 acres would be sufficient. He commented that it was sad to see the 2.2 acres included changes to the senior housing. He said that the changes to the plan were unsettling, such as the walkability for residents. He lives nearby, and it is not the center of attraction as it was proposed to be. He said he did not recognize it as it was initially pitched. He discussed a personal desire to see a platform tennis court at the community center. Chairman Noyes closed the public hearing. Mr. Maass said that the city was the applicant but did not own the property. He said that there was a land-use application with the property owner. He said that it was common for someone with a purchase agreement to apply with the approval of the current property owner. Chairman Noyes said this seemed to be a formality portion of the process, as they were not discussing what would be in the subdivisions. He thought there would be future opportunities to provide feedback. Commissioner Soller moved, Chairman Rosengren seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the requested preliminary plat and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. GENERAL BUSINESS: None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED APRIL 8, 2025 Commissioner Grover moved, Commissioner Trevena seconded to approve the Chanhassen Planning Commission summary minutes dated April 8, 2025, as presented. All voted in favor, and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7-0. 2. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED APRIL 15, 2025 Commissioner Trevena moved, Commissioner Jobe seconded to approve the Chanhassen Planning Commission summary minutes dated April 15, 2025, as presented. All voted in favor, and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7-0. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS: None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: None. CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION: None. 18 Planning Commission Minutes – May 6, 2025 9 OPEN DISCUSSION: None. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Jobe moved, Commissioner Olmstead seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 6:58 p.m. Submitted by Eric Maass Community Development Director 19